Petitioner does not question the constitutional right of a telephone company or other utility to earn a fair profit, but it requests that this Court rectify the imbalance which is created when the stockholder is permitted to to what he is doing and the consumer cannot even have a day in Court. It is necessary that the hand of the telephone monopoly be restrained by this Court lest, as has happened in Canada, Mexico, England, Japan, and virtually every other country, the excesses of this unbridled monopoly cause its removal from free private enterprise. Giving employment is one of the best known ways of giving money. C and P was free to give either money or employment to almost anyone-even thousand dollar bills. But to give money to the Commissioner directly, or to him indirectly by giving it to his family, was an entirely different matter. That neither Chairman Washington nor C and P came forward with the facts of employment of the Chairman's children by the telephone company, until after this Petitioner moved in this Court that the case be remanded for investigation by a lower Court, is at least some evidence that both Washington and C and P knew that what they were doing was improper. Whether the impropriety in fact constituted a violation of the criminal statutes quoted above, is a matter which only a Court could determine. For the reasons set forth in this petition of rehearing, as well as in the original Petition for Certiorari previously filed, and in the Motion for Remand, this Court should either return this Case to a lower tribunal for further investigation into the relationships of Commissioner Washington to the Telephone Company, with full disclosure as to all of the persons whom he sent to it for employment and all financial transactions, if any, arising from same, as well as how many relatives he actually had working for the telephone company during the rate hearings, or else this Court should grant certiorari, or such other relief as is met in this unusual case. Ethics has been compared to an iceberg-if you see any problem at all, you may expect to find much more beneath the surface than appears above. In this unique case nothing less than full and complete disclosure should suffice. Respectfully submitted, Arthur S. Curtis 816 National Press Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20004 Attorney for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL I hereby certify that the foregoing petition for rehearing is presented in good faith and not for delay and that it is restricted to the grounds specified in Rule 58(2) of the Rules of this Court. /s/ Arthur S. Curtis Subscribed and sworn to before Counsel for the Petitioner /s/ Katherine Kallivis, Notary Public SEAL EXHIBIT A AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES A. WASHINGTON, JR. I, JAMES A. WASHINGTON, JR., being first sworn according to law, depose and state as follows: 1. That I was the Chairman of the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia from October 1961 to October 1966. 2. That between the years September 1963 and August 1965 I presided at the hearings regarding the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company's application for a $10,500,000 increase in rates. 3. That I participated in the writing of the opinion in the case which was entered by the Commission in December 1964. The Commission denied a rate increase in the amount of $10,500,000 but granted an increase of $2,300,000. 4. That one of the intervenors in the case was The Telephone Users Association, Inc., whose President and attorney is Mr. Arthur S. Curtis. 5. That Mr. Arthur S. Curtis participated in the hearing of the case pro se and as an attorney for his association. 6. That during the course of the hearings but before the preparation of the opinion referred to above, Mr. Arthur S. Curtis approached me in my office at the Commission and stated that he had heard a rumor to the effect that I had a daughter who was employed at the Telephone Company. In response, I stated that is was not a rumor but a fact. I then asked the reason for his inquiry and indicated to him that, if he was intimating that the fact of her employment would have some effect upon my impartiality, he should raise this on motion before the Commission. He indicated that he did not care to do so and that he would drop the matter. He then left the office. 7. That I informed Commissioner Edgar H. Berstein of this matter shortly thereafter and also reported my conversation with Mr. Curtis to the Executive Secretary, Mr. Joseph S. Greco. 35-643 - 69-5 8. That I was not aware of my daughter's employment by the Telephone Company at the time she was employed and I made no contact with any executive or other person in the Telephone Company concerning her employment. 9. Then, at the request of my son, Stephen C. Washington, then age 17, I contacted an executive of the Telephone Company in July 1963 to ascertain whether youths could be hired under the Telephone Company summer program for youth at that date and I was informed that it was possible to apply for summer employment. I have been informed by Stephen C. Washington that he went to the Telephone Company, took an examination, passed the examination and was employed during the summer months in 1963 at an initial gross salary of $66.50 per week. The next year Stephen C. Washington went to the Telephone Company and was employed during the summer months of 1964 at a salary of $72.00 per week. I have been informed by my Son, Stephen C. Washington, that he again went to the Telephone Company in the early part of the summer of 1965 seeking temporary employment and was advised that the program had been discontinued. 10. At the time referred to immediately above I also inquired if my son, James A Washington, III, could make application after his summer school work and was told that he could apply. I have been informed by my son, James A. Washington, III, that he went to the Telephone Company, took the examination, passed the examination and on this basis he was employed for a period of three weeks. 11. That the Court should be fully advised that during the latter part of the year 1962 the Public Service Commission held a conference with executives of the Telephone Company, the Gas Company and the Electric Company for the purpose of determining ways and means of removing the racial imbalance in employment in public utilities of the District of Columbia. At that meeting the conferees discussed recruiting within the negro community by advertising, by visits to Howard University and by references from the Commission to the utilities of persons seeking employment. This activity was continued after this initial conference, with the first three meetings at six month intervals. As a result of these discussions the Chairman and others within the Commission referred persons to the Telephone Company, the Gas Company and the Electric Company for employment. It was a common understanding of all that reference did not mean employment and that any person referred would have to qualify by taking the required examination and by meeting the other qualifying criteria. [Many of the persons referred by me to the Telephone Company were not personally known to me.] Some of the persons referred by me to the Telephone Company were employed after qualifying. Others failed to quality and were rejected. /s/ James A. Washington, Jr. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of May 1969. /s/ Dorothy M. Rainey Notary Public, D.C. |